Science ... NOT God ...

[A Vestigial Mote]

All you guys have is nothing but to troll and project and ad hom those you disagree with. Pretend evidence is on your side and thats frankly.....it.

You'd like to think that, and I understand. But the truth is, you are the one making claims. It is not "ad hom" to point that out. It is not "ad hom" to ask you for evidence, or point out when what you provide is not even intrinsically related to the claim you are making. It is not "ad hom" to request that you meet certain standards of evidence before you claim to know a particular thing with the amount of certainty you proclaim you have.

 

[Jollybear]

Do i need to repeat that it was you, not i, or anyone else but you, who went on a tantrum and started repeating responses instead of debating properly? Do you remember?

So yes, "you're done." That's because it's more convenient to blame me, a random person who didn't actually say anything to you before your tantrum, for whatever anxiety you're currently feeling. Because this is not debating, and you're not debating. You're trying to shift blame for your personal paranoia onto a random person.

Maybe you should go to a doctor instead of hanging around a forum with multiple opposing viewpoints?



Problem: Everything you've so far said sounds like something made up a by a paranoid schizophrenic.

So that's like listening to a paranoid schizophrenic who's making truth claims and then believing him/her: Now why on earth would we want to do that? Your claims are roughly as convincing and well thought-out as the guy who came to me in the subway a few years ago claiming to be Jesus.

Dude, listen to me very carefully. There was no tandrum. There was simply a stradegy to show projectors how they are.

I dont give a rats *** what you believe or what you believe about me.

Cary on.

 

[Jollybear]

You'd like to think that, and I understand. But the truth is, you are the one making claims. It is not "ad hom" to point that out. It is not "ad hom" to ask you for evidence, or point out when what you provide is not even intrinsically related to the claim you are making. It is not "ad hom" to request that you meet certain standards of evidence before you claim to know a particular thing with the amount of certainty you proclaim you have.

You nor alot of others on this forum, frankly most in the world dont know what ad hominums are.

But hey, i dont care anymore.

Cary on. See ya. Im spending time in another thread, more interesting then this bull****.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You nor alot of others on this forum, frankly most in the world dont know what ad hominums are.

But hey, i dont care anymore.

Cary on. See ya. Im spending time in another thread, more interesting then this bull****.

You're the one who apparently doesn't know what an "ad hominem" is (please note that you don't even know how it is spelled). Here is a quick definition:

ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Meaning that instead of targeting my comments and criticism of YOUR POSITION, I would instead criticize some unrelated or tangentially-related aspect of YOU directly. This would be something like calling someone a name derogatorily, attempting to defame them with words for which you do not have solid reasons to use, or directly insulting them with something that diverges from the subject matter at hand. However, for instance, if you call someone a liar, or dishonest, this is not necessarily ad hominem if you can display the way in which they were dishonest, or factually catch them in a lie if they trip over their own words or argument.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Great thread:

 

[Darkstorn]

Dude, listen to me very carefully. There was no tandrum. There was simply a stradegy to show projectors how they are.

I dont give a rats *** what you believe or what you believe about me.

Cary on.

So you defend your tantrum by throwing another. If it's this difficult to debate with people without blowing up, maybe you should consider a new hobby.

One that gives you less anxiety. This place seems too contrary to your mental well-being.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bravo, you gave evidence in favor of my point.

Please, as if you have a point...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please, as if you have a point...

That all of reality is not objective and reality matters to you, is as it matters subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That all of reality is not objective and reality matters to you, is as it matters subjective.

Awesome.
Totally irrelevant to the points at hand though, as usual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Awesome.
Totally irrelevant to the points at hand though, as usual.

That science has limits, is irrelevant to you, because you assume that you can frame religion as irrelevant in an objective manner, but you can't.
You judge human behavior based on your particular, subjective framing. So do I, I am just intellectually honest about it. I am aware of the limits of science, reason, logic, objectivity and what not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That science has limits, is irrelevant to you, because you assume that you can frame religion as irrelevant in an objective manner, but you can't.
You judge human behavior based on your particular, subjective framing. So do I, I am just intellectually honest about it. I am aware of the limits of science, reason, logic, objectivity and what not.

I think it is amusing how the "science has limits" excuse is your go-to counterpoint to argue against any science that isn't to your liking.

And you're not even using it right.

Yes, science has limits because it has its scope within which it can address things.
This excuse however, does not work when the points being discussed live within the domain of science, which they do.


Any excuse will do for you, if it means you can avoid actually addressing the points being made. Be it by arguing strawmen, moving the goalposts, using dishonest semantic obfuscation or, like you did here, by inapropriately pretending that "science has limits" when the topic is well within the scientific domain of inquiry.


I still suspect you of not being serious and just trolling. But you seem to persistent. A troll would have given up already, I'ld think.

So sad. I'ld actually prefer it if you were trolling. But I fear you are dead serious and don't even realise the game you are playing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it is amusing how the "science has limits" excuse is your go-to counterpoint to argue against any science that isn't to your liking.

And you're not even using it right.

Yes, science has limits because it has its scope within which it can address things.
This excuse however, does not work when the points being discussed live within the domain of science, which they do.


Any excuse will do for you, if it means you can avoid actually addressing the points being made. Be it by arguing strawmen, moving the goalposts, using dishonest semantic obfuscation or, like you did here, by inapropriately pretending that "science has limits" when the topic is well within the scientific domain of inquiry.


I still suspect you of not being serious and just trolling. But you seem to persistent. A troll would have given up already, I'ld think.

So sad. I'ld actually prefer it if you were trolling. But I fear you are dead serious and don't even realise the game you are playing.

So let us say in the descriptive sense that a human has a superstitious belief. Is that a fact within methodological naturalism? Yes. But it doesn't follow that it is bad!
All your examples of how religion works, leads to the hidden evaluation that it is better not to be religious. But that "better" is subjective and not science.
Now, I could have misunderstood it. Then I will admit so, but that requires that you admit that in some cases religion can be good. So can religion in some cases be good?
What about answering that with intellectual honesty?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So let us say in the descriptive sense that a human has a superstitious belief. Is that a fact within methodological naturalism? Yes. But it doesn't follow that it is bad!

Who ever said anything about it being bad or good?
See, you're mixing issues again. How having a tendency of engaging in false positives and injecting agency in potentially random events and them leading to having a tendency of holding superstitious beliefs (like theistic religion), is just an explanation of why humans tend to believe in, and invent, religions.

That's it. There's no ethical judgement being made here. But since you insist....

All your examples of how religion works, leads to the hidden evaluation that it is better not to be religious.

Well, that's certainly interesting.
Seems like you, independently from myself, converge on the same conclusion here, given the facts.
It's not just religion though. It's all superstitious beliefs. I think it's certainly better to not hold superstitious beliefs. Superstition clearly isn't a pathway to truth. So if truth is what you are shooting for, the road of superstition probably won't take you there.

It might bring you towards some comfort or some inner peace or hope or whatever. But looks like it would be false hope, though.

Now, I could have misunderstood it.

Yes, you did, as usual.

Then I will admit so

It would be the first time ever.

, but that requires that you admit that in some cases religion can be good

I don't care about them being "good" or not. I care about what is actually true.

So can religion in some cases be good?

In erms of meeting a psychological need of the believer; sure
In terms of use as a pathway to what is actually true: no

What about answering that with intellectual honesty?

Says the guy who's again moved the goalposts.

 

[Jollybear]

You're the one who apparently doesn't know what an "ad hominem" is (please note that you don't even know how it is spelled). Here is a quick definition:
Meaning that instead of targeting my comments and criticism of YOUR POSITION, I would instead criticize some unrelated or tangentially-related aspect of YOU directly. This would be something like calling someone a name derogatorily, attempting to defame them with words for which you do not have solid reasons to use, or directly insulting them with something that diverges from the subject matter at hand. However, for instance, if you call someone a liar, or dishonest, this is not necessarily ad hominem if you can display the way in which they were dishonest, or factually catch them in a lie if they trip over their own words or argument.

What part of i dont give a rats *** to anything else you say dont you understand? **** off

 

[Jollybear]

So you defend your tantrum by throwing another. If it's this difficult to debate with people without blowing up, maybe you should consider a new hobby.

One that gives you less anxiety. This place seems too contrary to your mental well-being.

Again, what part of i dont give a rats *** anymore to anything your insecure bull**** sekf has to say? **** off.

Go pester some other sucker who has the patience to deal with you all. My patience has run out.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why do most atheists respect science over religion?
Here's why:

I love this video.

Though really this isn't 'science vs theism'.

 

[Desert Snake]

'Science vs theism ' isn't an argument you want to make, rather.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 6251231, member: 65929"...



Well, that's certainly interesting.
Seems like you, independently from myself, converge on the same conclusion here, given the facts.
It's not just religion though. It's all superstitious beliefs. I think it's certainly better to not hold superstitious beliefs. Superstition clearly isn't a pathway to truth. So if truth is what you are shooting for, the road of superstition probably won't take you there.

It might bring you towards some comfort or some inner peace or hope or whatever. But looks like it would be false hope, though.

Yes, you did, as usual.

It would be the first time ever.

I don't care about them being "good" or not. I care about what is actually true.

In terms of meeting a psychological need of the believer; sure
In terms of use as a pathway to what is actually true: no

Says the guy who's again moved the goalposts.[/QUOTE]

So why do I move goalposts? Because we always end at the bold parts.
You have made subjective claims, which are not true with scientific evidence.

Now then there is the problem of what truth is? How many kinds of truth there are or if there is only one kind of truth?
That is always the end game. What matters to you - truth, may not matter to me. We may even be unable to agree on what truth is. That is not different that people can't agree on what gods are.
The same with science. There is no single version of science.
Science, gods and truth are cultural products and that is it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Lost track of my own thread .... Sheesh!

Oh but there is evidence for Gods existence.

None that is convincing.

Youv heard it ad infinitum and still reject it.

That is because it isn't convincing.

Design of the universe.

Just because something appears designed, doesn't mean that it actually is.

DNA.

If DNA were evidence for god, all geneticists and relate sciences would be creationists.

Near death experiences where people see God.

None that are reputable.

Apparitions.

Substitute "hallucinations" and "pareidolia".

This is evidence. It is whether you like it or not, accept it or not.

Sorry. Don't agree.

Near death experiences bloom when investigated, particularly the veridical ones.

Like "The Little Boy Who Saw Heaven", who was famous among Christian circles, and later in life recanted his "testimony" and asserted being pressured into it by the adults in his life? Sure, that "blossomed".

There is evidence that near death experiences are more then physiological responses to brain chemistry in near death situations.

Oh? Care to share?

And yes, the DNA claims have been substanciated. Of course you can't support any of your claims, but if you make a clear claim about DNA I will post a refutation for you.

Yep. That's how Creationism works; futile attempts to attack what it doesn't understand So you want a claim to attack because you can provide no evidence to substantiate your own
OK.
I'll bite.
"DNA arises from natural chemical processes, some known, some not known; and as they arise from natural chemical processes, there is no logical reason to assume an intelligence behind it".

It cannot "sink in" except maybe on some subconscious
level.

That's why I engage in these discussions. I don't expect an overnight reversal or a few points of logic or a sound argument to topple years of indoctrination over an internet forum. But it becomes a part of their experience.

 

[Prestor John]

How does "man being made from dust", explain sharing egg yoke making genes with chickens?
How does "man being made from dust" predict sharing such genes with unrelated animals?

Dust is comprised of fine earth particles and organic materials.

Any of the genetic information from any of those creatures could be contained in the "dust" to create Adam's physical body.